- 22 Jul 2016 21:52
#14704361
Bushism has been soundly rejected. George HW Bush ran by trying to put some distance between himself and Ronald Reagan with his "Kinder, gentler nation" rhetoric. It wasn't working. So he went with "Read my lips, no new taxes." It still wasn't enough, so he ran Willie Horton ads to defeat Dukakis. We all remember that jimjam. Then, his second time around, he whined like Ted Cruz and didn't campaign much. He got schooled by Clinton. His track record though was raising taxes--defying his pledge, as did Ted Cruz and many other Republicans--passing a pro-big business Americans with Disabilities Act, and a few other pieces of Democratic legislation. One term. Even cloaked in the glory of defeating Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, he couldn't win a second term. The RNC types never learn that lesson. George W. Bush was criticized directly by Donald Trump, and while the mess in the Middle East is much more Obama and Hillary's fault, Bush did little to assure continuity. W took it on the chin and never fought back. That's why Trump has such hardcore supporters. They love it. Look at what Trump said about Ted Cruz today:
Ted Cruz Ruined His Career, I Don't Want His Endorsement! "What Difference Does It Make?"
All of those guys made Trump take an oath under the mistaken impression that he'd implode and run third party if he didn't win. A lot of those guys have violated their own pledge, the one they pressured Trump to take. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich...
What principles? He violated his pledge to support the nominee. So did Ted Cruz. I supported Ted Cruz. I will not support him next time. What were Ted Cruz's principles? "Donald Trump put up an ugly picture of my wife and a pretty picture of Melania and then he said mean things about my dad." The Supreme Court is at stake, foreign policy is at stake, and he's whining like a little baby. Talk about not having the temperament to be president...
All I can say is "Willie Horton." Now you want to call Trump a racist?
Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad
That was his prelude to a "Kinder, gentler nation..." He won that election of course, for the same reason Donald Trump may very well win this one: attacking the Democrats for their dangerous and derelict policies.
We shall see, but he isn't owned by the special interests...
Obama doesn't like racism against blacks, but he doesn't defend other groups the same way. Sometimes he'll mention Hispanics. However, he made George Zimmerman a "white" man, not a Hispanic and gave direction to the media to follow suit.
Somebody doesn't like gambling, it seems. Well, Trump has been saying the same thing on trade for decades. So we know where he stands there. As for the race, I thought it was brilliant. He eviscerated establishment candidates easily with a fraction of their funding. That's pretty efficient. The downside of it is that women don't like it when you say, "Little Marco..." and so forth. "Low-energy Jeb Bush" wasn't so bad, but I think "Little Marco" and "Lying Ted Cruz" put him off with women.
The rich will do fine. They just won't have the fat gross margins they had outsourcing everything to China, but they'll do just fine.
They have no control over him. The establishment is used to knowing your next move. Donald Trump keeps everyone off balance.
They have been trying to stop the Tea Party forever, and now they have lost the nomination of the presidency to Trump--who tapped right into the Tea Party. It's those who have benefited from it and then betrayed it that are toast: Little Marco Rubio and Lyin Ted Cruz.
To them, it's about them. The qualification for being president is born a citizen of the United States, resident for 14 years and 35 years of age. Lots of people are qualified for the job.
And they ask people to care about it in the context of the Clintons. And they're serious...
The problem for his opponents is that it is working for him, and he can't be stopped. The media could try to embargo him, but they just lose ratings. Trump understands that ratings are more important than popularity.
jimjam wrote:Two former Republican presidents refusal to attend is positioned as they are the "past" and we are the future.
Bushism has been soundly rejected. George HW Bush ran by trying to put some distance between himself and Ronald Reagan with his "Kinder, gentler nation" rhetoric. It wasn't working. So he went with "Read my lips, no new taxes." It still wasn't enough, so he ran Willie Horton ads to defeat Dukakis. We all remember that jimjam. Then, his second time around, he whined like Ted Cruz and didn't campaign much. He got schooled by Clinton. His track record though was raising taxes--defying his pledge, as did Ted Cruz and many other Republicans--passing a pro-big business Americans with Disabilities Act, and a few other pieces of Democratic legislation. One term. Even cloaked in the glory of defeating Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, he couldn't win a second term. The RNC types never learn that lesson. George W. Bush was criticized directly by Donald Trump, and while the mess in the Middle East is much more Obama and Hillary's fault, Bush did little to assure continuity. W took it on the chin and never fought back. That's why Trump has such hardcore supporters. They love it. Look at what Trump said about Ted Cruz today:
Ted Cruz Ruined His Career, I Don't Want His Endorsement! "What Difference Does It Make?"
All of those guys made Trump take an oath under the mistaken impression that he'd implode and run third party if he didn't win. A lot of those guys have violated their own pledge, the one they pressured Trump to take. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich...
jimjam wrote:Hmmmm I guess we really cannot expect the "we are always right and never ever wrong" trumpsters to understand that Kasich is simply standing by his principles.
What principles? He violated his pledge to support the nominee. So did Ted Cruz. I supported Ted Cruz. I will not support him next time. What were Ted Cruz's principles? "Donald Trump put up an ugly picture of my wife and a pretty picture of Melania and then he said mean things about my dad." The Supreme Court is at stake, foreign policy is at stake, and he's whining like a little baby. Talk about not having the temperament to be president...
Electro Cat Attack wrote:They are shameful hypocrites and they deserve to be on the fire of history.
All I can say is "Willie Horton." Now you want to call Trump a racist?
Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad
That was his prelude to a "Kinder, gentler nation..." He won that election of course, for the same reason Donald Trump may very well win this one: attacking the Democrats for their dangerous and derelict policies.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not mean that he will actually make any substantial change to trade, immigration or speech.
We shall see, but he isn't owned by the special interests...
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am certain that Obama as a young man was always against racism, and that he felt the same way on the campaing trail, but he did not make any great change.
Obama doesn't like racism against blacks, but he doesn't defend other groups the same way. Sometimes he'll mention Hispanics. However, he made George Zimmerman a "white" man, not a Hispanic and gave direction to the media to follow suit.
Beren wrote:I wonder if he has a strategy or he's just an intuitive gambler only calculating his next bet.
Somebody doesn't like gambling, it seems. Well, Trump has been saying the same thing on trade for decades. So we know where he stands there. As for the race, I thought it was brilliant. He eviscerated establishment candidates easily with a fraction of their funding. That's pretty efficient. The downside of it is that women don't like it when you say, "Little Marco..." and so forth. "Low-energy Jeb Bush" wasn't so bad, but I think "Little Marco" and "Lying Ted Cruz" put him off with women.
ArtAllm wrote:Well, if this,happens, he will lose the popular support.
The rich will do fine. They just won't have the fat gross margins they had outsourcing everything to China, but they'll do just fine.
ArtAllm wrote:And why does the establishment hate him so much, if he is just a fake?
They have no control over him. The establishment is used to knowing your next move. Donald Trump keeps everyone off balance.
Redneck wrote:Although you may be right about Trumps arrogance, what bothers me is that those you named may well catapult Clinton into the presidency. You may like that idea, but I for one do not and will hold Cruz, Bush and Kasbitch responsible for doing so.
They have been trying to stop the Tea Party forever, and now they have lost the nomination of the presidency to Trump--who tapped right into the Tea Party. It's those who have benefited from it and then betrayed it that are toast: Little Marco Rubio and Lyin Ted Cruz.
Redneck wrote:I realize they won't give a rats ass what I think but I'm not the only one who feels that way and when you add us up, we can do some damage.
This isn't about them it's about the voters.
To them, it's about them. The qualification for being president is born a citizen of the United States, resident for 14 years and 35 years of age. Lots of people are qualified for the job.
Donald wrote:It is a bit amusing that some people here are in complete denial that Trumpism has an intellectual and dialectical dimension. The lamenting of his moral character or business dealings are boring and irrelevant and it makes people look like they are genuinely butt hurt about his political ascent.
And they ask people to care about it in the context of the Clintons. And they're serious...
Zagadka wrote:Trump's campaign powers seem to be based solely on Twitter-length potshots. Bite sized cheering points that are easy for crowds to digest.
The problem for his opponents is that it is working for him, and he can't be stopped. The media could try to embargo him, but they just lose ratings. Trump understands that ratings are more important than popularity.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden